@Coloma
Having a moral code is a desirable characteristic. It is not something to be ashamed of. I, however, see problems where a moral code is rigid in that it consists of absolute prohibitions or mandates in behavior.
For instance: killing is wrong, and therefore you cannot kill. Of course this means no self-defense.
You really, really, really need to listen to what I’m saying instead of what you want to hear, and accusing me of having a “hole in my head” (ps – thanks for that, but you still avoided pointing out any faults with my question as well as avoided answering the question, again). I never said that one shouldn’t enjoy the fruits of their labor – even when it is something extravagant. I never said one should feel guilty for not being 100% altruistic with their excess income. What I said was that it is not morally justifiable to say “I deserve to buy this designer whatever because I want it, when someone is dying because they can’t afford to buy food. I deserve to buy this because I am more wealthy, and they deserve to die because they are not.” It is not reprehensible, as I already stated. It is morally equivalent, I believe – but it’s important to realize what you’re doing. If you or I or anyone feels guilty because of that, that will influence their action as they feel appropriate.
Therefore, there is no obligation to act in any way. However, if someone who is desperate because of great need commits an act that is morally wrong (as I agree that stealing is), that wrong needs to be balanced against the need and the harm caused by it. This doesn’t privilege them to do it, nor does it forgive the act, but it makes it comprehensible and therefore the reaction to it should be mitigated by those considerations.
That’s the very basis of the criminal justice system. If criminal acts were treated the same regardless of the criminal intent (mens rea), we would not have criminal degrees (first degree murder versus manslaughter, for instance), we would not have defenses (self defense, insanity), and we would not have excuses (intoxication for specific intent crimes).
Your philosophy is not what you describe, which is the problem with rigid moral codes – they create both obligations and prohibitions that are absolute and therefore contradictory when practically applied. If you don’t owe anything, have not guilt, no obligation, etc., that requires that no one need respect anyone as having any rights – I should not feel guilty for taking something from you that is “yours” because I don’t owe anything to you. Anything you give me is great – but don’t get upset if I don’t give a shit about you because you gave it to me, and if you need something in the future, you don’t get to be upset if I laugh in your face. You think I owe you because you were dumb enough to give me something before? ;-)
Further, if you don’t believe in forcible taking, I hope that you aren’t paying your taxes. Any of them. Even though it’s Constitutionally legal.
You keep flipping the argument to say that the wealthy should feel obligated to give or not feel they should be compensated when something is stolen from them. Or that they should feel guilty about spending excess money. No, that’s not nor has it been the issue. It’s simply that the right to do as they please should not be expected to be sacrosanct in that it’s never comprehensible to violate it even when (1) the benefit to the person doing so is so profound as to save lives, and (2) the harm to that person or persons who has their right violated is so little as it is not felt.
You only consider one side of the issue.